ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Intro
We continue to collect information which proves that MGA was born in 1839 at the earliest. We have recently found a book by the famous Shaikh Yacub Ali Irfani. He was the editor of the Al-Hakam and was an a newspaper editor with another newspaper before moving to Qadian. He wrote 4 historic books in 1915, Sirat-ul-Nabi, Sirat Ahmad, Hyat-e-Ahmad and Sirat Masih Maoud. We have found a scan from Hyat-e-Ahmad which indicates that mga was born in 1839 (See in the below). The Khalifa began to officially change this date in 1916 or so. The 2nd Khalifa seems to have written the introduction to this book. He urges all Ahmadi’s to buy this book, and thus authenticates its contents (see the scan in the below). Data about this book was posted on the islam_Ahmadiyya reddit forum, see here. This book was also quoted in a new book about the life of MGA, which is a translation of an Urdu book. The book is also on the Qadiani website herein.

In this book, MGA discusses the raising of the dead and gives a story (Hyat-e-Ahmad, V-1, Part-2, page 288)(see scan in the below).

In this book, in a footnote, Rev Munshi Hassan Ali Safir is mentioned:

“There was an editor of Nur-i-Afshan, namely Hassan Ali Safir. He was around 60 years of age and a very well-versed poet and writer. Once an article was published about him in Manshur-i-Muhammadi. I took that issue to him and asked, ‘Are you the same Safir Sahib who has been mentioned here or someone else?’ He felt a bit embarrassed [mahjub] and said, ‘Sahibzada! You seem to be fond of reading newspapers. I receive many newspapers here, so you may take them [to read].’ In this way, I built some frankness with him and hence, I submitted to him a question to be published [in Nur-i-Afshan]” (See Hayat-e-Ahmad, Vol. 3, pp. 213-214, footnote).

and

“Therefore, he posed a question in response to my question as to ‘what kind of Tawhid you believe in?’ My response to it got published […]. At last, Reverend [EP] Newton [Superintendent of Nur-i-Afshan] compelled Munshi Hassan Ali Safir to halt the series [of correspondence]” (Hayat-e-Ahmad, Vol. 3, pp. 213-214, footnote).
Continue reading ““Hyat-e-Ahmad” by Yaqoob Ali Arfani in 1915″ →

Intro
Dear readers, Ahmadiyya disproves itself when we see the lengths that they go to disprove facts. All Ahmadiyya and neutral records up to May 1908 show that MGA was born in either 1839 or 1840. Furthermore, Ahmadiyya editors purposely edited (and added to) the appendix of Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya Vol-5 as they were desperately trying to make MGA look older so as to fulfill the “age-prophecy”, they then published it in October of 1908. BA5 was never written by MGA, it was his editors who inserted the information in BA5 trying to show that MGA was 70 by 1905. Furthermore, they also inserted the part wherein MGA claims 5 years more or less of 80.  Thus, they created a window of age from 74 to 85. The ROR of July 1908 asserted that MGA’s correct year of birth was 1836 or 1837 (see page 235), thus the Khalifa wrote exactly this in 1916 in his short autobiography on his father’s life. The Moslem Sunrise used 1837 and later 1836 and finally 1835 after 1946.
Continue reading “MGA’s age-prophecy discussed in the ROR of March-1914” →

Intro
Dear readers, Qadian was always a Hindu/Sikh majority village.  When Ahmadi’s moved to Rabwah, they were really able to expand their family business, since they were able to have a headquarters wherein 100% of the populace was Ahmadi and thus they were able to control the whole city economically.

See Dard, page 777
“”””The officiating Tahsildar of Batala, Moti Ram, came to Qadian on May 8th, 1903, and made some enquiries. In view of his suspicious attitude a memorial was sent to him on May 9th, 1903, under the signatures of about 30 Ahmadis of Qadian. That was probably the total number of the adult male population of Ahmadis at that time living in Qadian.””””

Links and Related Essays
https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/01/15/are-ahmadis-the-fastest-growing-islamic-sect-the-world-christian-encyclopedia-opened-and-evaluated/

Intro
Pir Manzur Muhammad (also spelled Peer Manzoor)(1866-1950) was the son of Sufi Ahmad Jan of Ludhiana. Noorudin had married his sister (Sughra Begum) in 1889, while MGA was conducting his famous BAIT of 1889. However, he doesn’t seem to have converted to Ahmadiyya, on 6 February 1892, he pledged allegiance to MGA in Lahore. At that time, he was working as a clerk in the education department in Jammu, a job he acquired through Hakim Maulvi Nuruddin, his brother-in-law. When Hakim Maulvi Nuruddin left his job in Jammu (1893) and came to Qadian, Pir Manzur Muhammad also came to Qadian for permanent residence. Here, he learned how to write so that he could help in the writings of MGA.

In 1906, he married off his daughter to MGA’s youngest brother-in-law (Mir Muhammad Ishaq),
and in exchange, MGA began to have revelations about Pir Manzur Muhammad having a baby-boy, he already had 2 daughters and were thus hoping for a son.

A daughter was born to Pir Manzur Muhammad on Tuesday, 17 July 1906 (Via Haqiqatul Wahi, page 122, Online English, Urdu, page 109). His wife (a different Muhammadee Begum) herself died in 1908. This prophecy is also connected to the famous “Doomsday Prophecy”.

In 1907, The marriage of Mirza Mubarak Ahmad and Abdul Haye is announced (See Al-Badr of Sep-5-1907 and via Bro Imtiaz, 31:22). Abdul Haye is marrying the daughter of Pir Manzur Muhammad (father of the other Muhamadee Begum). Mirza Mubarak Ahmad is marrying Maryam, the daughter of Dr. Abdul Sattar Shah, she only 2 years old.

In 1914, Pir Manzur Muhammad wrote to the Khalifa (Noorudin) and asked about the “Musleh Maud”, Pir Manzur Muhammad was already indicating that Mirza Basheer-uddin Mahmud Ahmad was in-fact the Musleh Maud (see Tashhizul Azhan, 1914, and Tarikh-i-Ahmadiyyat, Vol. IV, page 369) and (“Truth Prevails”, pages 90-91). We have also written an essay on MGA, abortion, mis-carriages and his followers. Ahmadiyya sources also tell us that Pir Manzur Muhammad wrote the famous standardized “Yassarnal-Quran” in Urdu in 1904, it is still used to this day.

Also check out Bro Imtiaz’s stream on this herein.
Continue reading “Failed Prophecy of MGA regarding the Birth of a Son to Pir Manzur Muhammad 1906-1908” →

Intro
Per Ahmadiyya sources, MGA left Qadian for Lahore on the morning of April 27, 1908. This was the first time that MGA left Qadian since November of 1905, that’s 30 months or so and allegedly for the health of his wife (Nusrat Jehan). MGA’s entourage included his wife (Nusrat Jehan) and a few of their children (we aren’t sure if all 5 were there in Lahore). Maulvi Amrohi and Noorudin were part of the caravan from Qadian to Lahore. Mufti Muhammad Sadiq met up with them later on.

Ahmadiyya sources allege that MGA and his entourage arrived in Batala on roughly the 28th of April-1908. They stayed at a roadside inn, Sarai Mai Ichra Devi, near the railway station. It took some time for the seats to be reserved and the entourage spent the next day and the day after in this inn at Batala. After a few days in Batala, MGA’s delegation departed for Lahore by the morning train and arrived at Lahore in the afternoon.

On April 30th (roughly) MGA and his entourage arrived in Lahore and decided to stay at Khawaja Kamaluddin house on Killianwali Road, adjacent to Islamia College Lahore. Bhai Ji narrates that MGA later moved to Dr. Syed Hussain Shah Sahib’s house, which was opposite Khawaja Sahib’s house, and a makeshift wooden bridge was prepared to join the rooftops of the two houses. Congregational prayers would be offered on the rooftop of Khawaja Sahib’s house.
Continue reading “Mirza Ghulam Ahmad left for Lahore, from Qadian on April 27-1908, in the morning” →

Intro
Mirza Ghulam Muhi-ud-Din or spelled as Mirza Ghulam Muhyuddin or Muhiyyuddin (died in 1866) was the paternal uncle of MGA, as well as the father of Imam ud Din, Nizam ud din, Kalam ud Din and their 2 sisters (see Punjab Chiefs) Mirza Ghulam Qadir brother married one of their sisters, Hurmat Bibi was her name, the other is Umar-un-Nissa, she was married to Mirza Ahmad Beg (See Mujadid e Azim, english abridged version). The daughter of Umar-un-Nissa and Mirza Ahmad Beg was the famous Muhammadi Begum. He was mentioned in the ROR of June-1939 and the ROR of Aug-1939.
Continue reading “Who is Mirza Ghulam Muhi-ud-Din? Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s paternal uncle (died in 1866)” →

Intro
If you are following the conversation on the “age-controversy of MGA” then this information shows the true purpose of the Ahmadiyya Movement, i.e. to confuse and cover up the errors and failures of MGA.

In 1922, Mufti Muhammad Sadiq had written 1837 on page 49. This is the 3rd edition in the history of the magazine. In the first and second issues, MGA’s birth year is not mentioned. Technically, in 1926, Mufti Muhammad Sadiq changed MGA’s year of birth to 1835 (see Zikr-e-Habib). You will see that they used 1836 as MGA’s birth year starting in Dec 1930 (see page 5).

The 2nd Quarter 1946 edition, See page 5

Continue reading “The Moslem Sunrise on the Date of Birth of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, 1836 or 1837?” →

Intro
If you are watching the age-controversy of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad prophecy then this info is refreshing. Even though we have proved that MGA and his followers always believed that MGA was born in late 1839 or early 1840, per MGA’s own writings and the ROR of June 1906. Even all the newspapers reported that MGA was born in 1839 or 1840 upon his death (see ROR, June-July 1908). Nevertheless, we have also found the 1909 edition of the “Punjab Chiefs”, which was essentially an official report given to the British government by an employee, Sir Lepel Griffin. Moreover, MGA isn’t even mentioned in the first 2 editions of the Punjab Chiefs. This book was mentioned in the ROR of Nov-1943, via Malfuzat, and via allegations that MGA’s father lied to Lepel Griffin and claimed nobility only for financial gain.

This edition of the Punjab Chiefs also had the famous statement by Mufti Muhammad Sadiq to the author wherein he claimed that none of MGA’s relatives had accepted Ahmadiyya, this made the Khalifa, Maulvi Nur ud Din upset (see the scan in the below).

Continue reading ““The Punjab Chiefs”, 1909 edition, officially states that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was born in 1839″ →

Intro
The majority of prophecies of MGA failed.  As a result of this, after MGA died, Ahmadi’s scrambled to clean up the mess. Noorudin tackled the failure of the Muhammadi Begum prophecy directly, but there are many other cases, in fact, we are all late to the party, so to speak. This entire story and references is taken from the Lahori-Ahmadi website. This is basically the son of MGA saying that he isn’t the Musleh Maud, however, after he became Khalifa, almost every edition of the ROR was claiming that he was actually the Musleh Maud.  Years later, the Lahori-Ahmadi’s would opine that MGA’s son that died was the Musleh Maud.  Finally, Hani Tahir recently made a video about this entire story herein (at the 4:49 mark). Hani Tahir quotes a speech of the Khalifa, Mirza Basheer-uddin mahmud Ahmad from the annual jalsa of 1939 wherein the Khalifa argues that he cannot deny the Khilafat like Hassan did, or else he would die and cause his whole family to be killed, like Hasan. This speech was given on the 25 year anniversary of his Khilafat. Its Urdu edition was first published by Al-Shirkatul Islamiyyah in 1961 and has now been included in Anwarul ‘Ulum Vol. 15. The first english edition was published in 2009.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________Why so many contradictions?

The sons of MGA contradict each other all the time, this is nothing new. In fact, Mirza Basheer-uddin Mahmud Ahmad would always publicly say that a son of a Khalifa should not be a Khalifa, however, behind the scenes he was prepping Mirza Nasir Ahmad to be the 3rd Khalifa.  In fact, after 1956 or so, the Khalifa, Mirza Basheer-uddin Mahmud Ahmad stopped making public appearances and never led Salaat, Mirza Nasir Ahmad did all of that, and thus acted like a Khalifa as early as 1956 or 1957. One more point, Mirza Nasir Ahmad was the President of Majlis Khuddam ul Ahmadiyya since its inception in 1939, and thus all the youth of Ahmadiyya knew who Mirza Nasir Ahmad, the Khalifa seems to have taken the president-ship for about 5-6 years (officially) upto 1954, he was also the principal of the Talim ul Islam Highschool at Qadian and the new college in 1944 to 1965. Other then this, he didn’t seem to write any essays in his daddy’s magazines and newspapers, nor are any of his speeches recorded or written out from the 1950’s. Interestingly enough, Mirza Bashir Ahmad opined that the Ahmadiyya Khilafat would end (in the 1950’s he wrote about it).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
The Data
See Sadko Ki Roshni also, and Vol. 1 of Anwarul Aloom
Tashhiz-ul-Azhan (v. 3, no. 6–7, June–July 1908)

Shortly after the death of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in May 1908, Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad wrote a lengthy article in the magazine of which he was editor, Tashhiz-ul-Azhan (v. 3, no. 6–7, June–July 1908), answering allegations by the opponents of the Ahmadiyya Movement that some of the prophecies of the Promised Messiah had not been fulfilled in his lifetime. One objection related to the non-fulfilment of the prophecy of the birth of a noble and glorious son who would bring a great transformation in the world (the Muslih Mau‘ood). In answering this objection, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote that the word ‘son’ in this prophecy could apply to a later descendant of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from some future generation or it could even apply to any true follower who is not physically related to him in any way.

After Mirza Mahmud Ahmad became khalifa in 1914, his followers began to put forward the notion that he was the Muslih Mau‘ood, till in 1944 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad himself laid claimed to this.Starting from within that period till now, members of the Qadiani Movement have been raising the same objection against the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement as the opponents of the Ahmadiyya Movement raised against Ahmadis in 1908, saying: if you believe that the Muslih Mau‘ood has not yet come then it means that the Promised Messiah’s prophecy about a great son was untrue. Our answer is just the same as the answer that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad gave to the opponents of the Ahmadis so emphatically, in full detail, in 1908 as quoted below.

In this reply Mirza Mahmud Ahmad does not even mention the possibility that one of the three sons living at that time, including himself, could in future become the Muslih Mau‘ood. However, his followers later argued that a part of the prophecy, made in 1886, was that the Muslih Mau‘ood would be born within nine years, so he had to be born by 1895. But Mirza Mahmud Ahmad makes no mention of this in his 1908 article!
_____________________________________________________________________________________________Extracts from article by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad

Note: Click here to see the extracts below from the original Urdu magazine, presented as scanned images.

This point should also be considered that even according to the use of language the word ‘son’ can also be applied to a descendant from some future generation. Accordingly, it is used in this way frequently in Arabic. Thus, many tribes are named after a forerunner and they are called his sons.

— p. 297-298

Considering that people of the world call one man as the son of another who passed away several centuries earlier, and thus Umar ibn Abdul Aziz and Harun Rashid are known as the sons of Umayya and Abbas respectively, why cannot God the Most High call a boy from among the future descendants of the Promised Messiah as being his son? Is God not allowed to do what people can do? When worldly people can consider a man to be related to one who passed away long before, even though he does not deserve it, can God not do the same, Who knows well who deserves to be related to whom? Today those known as Sayyid, despite being embroiled in thousands of kinds of evils and sins, … are considered deservant of being called Al-i Muhammad, but when God the Most High has, for some purpose, referred to a boy from among the future descendants of the Promised Messiah as being his son, this is regarded as unlawful.

… Today, not hundreds but thousands of preachers call out loudly in their speeches ‘O sons of Adam, refrain from doing such and such acts’ and ‘do such and such acts’, but no one asks them: ‘Why are you addressing us by this title when Adam was not our father?’ So what is the problem if a boy from among the future descendants of the Promised Messiah is called his son?

His revelation, kafá háza, proves clearly that the revelation about son refers to a boy from the future descendants, and the revelation ‘your descendants will have fame through your name’ further supports that someone from future descendants can also be called the son of the Promised Messiah. God the Most High knows well who deserves to be known as his son. So what harm is there if a prophecy is given about a glorious boy who would bring a transformation in the world and he is called as the son of Hazrat sahib? The Holy Prophet too said that those among the Persians who accept Islam are included in the Bani Fatima. So do the Persians themselves become the sons of Fatima? One should also ponder over the fact that in the Quran and Hadith this figure of speech is used frequently. So what harm is there if God the Most High spoke to the Promised Messiah in this way? For example, in the Holy Quran the Jews are again and again called the Children of Israel. Although Israel had died some 2500 years previously, God the Most High still called the Jews as the Children of Israel. If this had not been a form of expression used by the Arabs and in the Divine scriptures, the Jews of that time who raised objections on most things would have cried out immediately that they were not the Children of Israel and would have given the names of their fathers. Again, in the Holy Quran it is said about Abraham “We gave him Isaac and Jacob”, even though Jacob was not the son of Abraham but of Isaac. This shows that such expressions occur in the word of God, and there is no scope for objection in this.

— p. 298-300

By son can be meant grandson or great grandson or some other descendant. There is no cause for objection in this.

— p. 300

Ponder that it is stated clearly in the Quran:

“And strive hard for Allah with due striving. He has chosen you and has not laid upon you any hardship in religion — the faith of your father Abraham. He named you Muslims.” (22:78)

Now does this verse mean that the name of the father of every Muslim is Abraham? Most certainly not. It means that he who follows the example of Abraham, walks in the path taught by him and accepts Islam, is in the sight of God like the son of Abraham. Everyone knows that there are hundreds of nations among Muslims who are not descended from Abraham nor is their nation connected with the family of Abraham in any way. Thus when God declares every such person as son of Abraham who is a Muslim and strives in the way of God, giving the word ‘son’ so broad a meaning that it is not necessary to be from among the Bani Ismail or the Bani Israel, then where is the difficulty if the same God today declares someone from the future descendants of the Promised Messiah as his son? To sum up, not only people of Iran, Afghanistan, India, China and Japan but even Europe and America can be called sons of Abraham, and God the Most High calls them sons of Abraham in the Holy Quran. So what is the problem if a man is declared as the son of the Promised Messiah?

We also find such figures of speech when we look in Hadith. For example, on the night of the mi‘raj, when the Holy Prophet asked Gabriel about Abraham, he replied to him: This is your righteous father. He said the same about Adam. So when this is proved from the Quran and Hadith, then why is the objection raised against the Promised Messiah that he was given the promise of a son which was not fulfilled. The promises of God never remain unfulfilled. They always come to pass, and the same will happen in this case. These revelations did not mean that the Promised Messiah himself would have a son but that in the future such a man would be born from his progeny who, in the sight of God, would be as if he were his son, and would be considered his fifth son, besides his four sons. Just as Jesus is known as the son of David, so will he be called the Promised Messiah’s son.

This view of mine is supported by the revelation of the Promised Messiah that I quoted above, kafá háza, which meant that he would not have any further male issue. Accordingly, two girls were born after this, and no boy. The Promised Messiah himself also believed this because he too applied a revelation to his grandson which gave news of a son. Otherwise, if he thought that it would be his son, why should he have applied it to his grandson? In that case, he would have thought that he would have a son in the future to fulfil the revelation. So it is evidently clear that those revelations were about a boy from later descendants, whether it be a grandson, great grandson, or later still.

— p. 301-303

Our Holy Prophet had given the prophecy of the railway as a form of transport which has been fulfilled today. Should the people of the twelve centuries in the middle have given up Islam and turned to unbelief because the prophecy of the new form of transport was not fulfilled? As this has been happening to all the prophets, that they made prophecies about future times, then what does it matter if the Promised Messiah also gave some news of the future and foretold that among his descendants would be born a boy possessing such great awe that it would be as if God had descended from heaven to help him? This will further prove his truth and people of that future time will see this prophecy fulfilled and derive pleasure from it. People of the present time should ponder over the promises that are for them … As I have written, this prophecy of a son is about a boy from his descendants who would be a man of great glory, being accompanied by Divine succour. I have also proved that it is not only in the revelation of the Promised Messiah that such metaphorical expressions occur, but they are also found in the words of the earlier prophets and in the Quran and Hadith. A person is referred to as son, but a later descendant is meant.

— p. 305

______________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essays

Ahmadiyya and 24:55 of the Quran and their Spiritual Khilafat

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/?s=Talim

Click to access Khilafat-e-Rashida.pdf

http://ahmadiyya.org/qadis/rep-khilafat-speech.pdf

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/06/29/the-office-of-khilafat-cannot-be-a-family-inheritance/

Even in 1907, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was still lusting for his niece, Muhammadi Begum

http://www.muslim.org/qadis/mm/tashhiz.htm

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/?s=tash

The office of Khilafat cannot be a family inheritance

Was Mirza Mubarak Ahmad the Musleh Maud?

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2020/02/23/the-muslehmaud-prophecy-is-a-total-fraud/

______________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam #atifmian